Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Human babies born today are more or less the same neurologically and biologically as human babies born ten of thousand years ago. We tend to think of humans from the past as more primitive than us, less capable of advanced thinking, less smart. But humans haven't evolved significantly in that regard in millennia. The scale required to really see noticeable changes in structures like brains in that regard is millions of years, not thousands. So it's not that a human born ten thousand years ago was less neurologically advanced than us--they weren't dumber. They just had access to less of the knowledge of the world that we had.

So really the only difference between a baby born today and one born ten thousand years ago is what you put into them. If you give them a first rate education that capitalizes on all the most recent advances of science and history, if you feed them well, if you nurture them in all the ways that we now know through science are the best for them, then you maximize their potential in the era of human history that they happened into.

But in our culture, a very strong presumption in favor of the parents' rights to control their child's upbringing has developed. It is so strong, that we let them teach the children anything they want, take them anywhere they want, and in effect indoctrinate them in any way they see fit. The parents' treatment of the child has to reach extremes before we will intervene. If there is outright physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, we legally intervene.

But consider educational child abuse. If we take a medieval or ancient worldview that makes simplistic and demonstratively false claims about the world, and if we teach that child that that is the truth, we rob them of thousands of years of important advances in science, physics, biology, history, and medicine. Consider the large percentage of the population who still believes that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Consider how many people don't understand the rudiments of the scientific method. Consider the $40 billion or so that Americans spend on alternative, unproven medical treatments. The majority of Americans believe in ghosts, psychic powers, communication with the dead, and other paranormal phenomena. Every time a parent passes some of that to a child, the child has lost the opportunity to find out the truth, she's less equipped to deal with the real world as we know it, and her life will be filled with more ignorance, fear, and superstition. And she goes on to propagate those ideas, miring all of us in the past.

If we inculcate child with a simplistic set of moral principles from an ancient culture, we leave them ill equipped to deal with the radically different social, technological, medical, and psychological issues that face us now when we have to make responsible moral decisions. Consider the Ten Commandments that are so often touted as the pinnacle of moral guidance. It's naïve to think that we can resolve complicated new moral dilemmas like the morally acceptable use of stem cells to cure disease, or end of life euthanasia, or other medical decisions that are made complicated by 21st century advances in technology with a handful of aphorisms from the 2nd century. You will not find any clear answers to moral questions about in vitro fertilization, or fetal genetic testing in the Bible. But you will find some thoughtful guidance and relevant information in the works of moral philosophers, researchers, and analysts in the 21st century.

When parents impart a religious worldview that is 1,000 years old, or 2,000 years old to their children that ignores what humanity has learned about the universe, about history, about human psychology, about medicine, and everything else, they do a grievous harm to that child. The point would be obvious if a parent decided to only teach their child addition, but refused to let them learn multiplication, algebra, and calculus. And if a parent told their child that the food in the grocery store nourishes because it is inhabited by friendly benevolent spirits that help the body from the inside, we'd also be scandalized. If a parent told their child that everything that people think about history is a myth--there was no American revolution, there was no discovery of electricity, there was no World War I and II--but instead, all of the humans on the planet were put here last week by magical fairies, it would be obvious that the parent is not fit and the child's interests are not being served. So how is giving a child a religious education any different?

Again, your argument only holds sway to someone who espouses liberal political ideals. Don Marquis is an atheist. He is also pro-life. So is James Wallace. Wallace holds many other conservative views as well. You seem to think that atheists would all be pro-universal health care. Ayn Rand certainly was not.

Matt has actually hit the proverbial nail on the head. It is not a matter of "liberal agenda" as most consevative or theist might wish, it is a fact of educational performance.

One example could be the account of Genesis 30, where Jacob uses colored sticks to supposedly make sheep and goats have colored or speckled coats. Not only is this bad science the story is also about moral corruption and deceit by Jacob to defraud Laban of multitudes of sheep and goat flocks. Thes animals in that period, and now, were high commodity.

I am so glad I found this article (and this blog period). I'm guessing most of my Christian friends would be solidly opposed to and disgusted by the idea of a parent relentlessly instilling their young child with a specific political ideology - but doing the same with a comprehensive worldview? Oh well, because it's Jesus it's fine.

Forcing young children to learn about and adhere to a philosophically complicated (and in the case of religion, inconsistent) worldview to me seems terribly dangerous and misguided. I can't imagine 8-year-old kids in Sunday school have yet developed the ability to think too deeply about what they're being taught, to analyze and examine doctrines for themselves. Instead, they're put in a position where they have assent to complicated ideas they shouldn't have to shoulder responsibility for at their age, else risk disapproval from some authority figure. This seems like intellectual bullying to me; the kids are put in a totally unfair position.

As a former Christian, now I can't imagine being a parent and instilling in my hypothetical future child a view that says from the moment they were born, they deserved to experience the worst possible suffering forever.

I am so glad I found this article (and this blog period). I'm guessing most of my Christian friends would be solidly opposed to and disgusted by the idea of a parent relentlessly instilling their young child with a specific political ideology - but doing the same with a comprehensive worldview? Oh well, because it's Jesus it's fine.

Forcing young children to learn about and adhere to a philosophically complicated (and in the case of religion, inconsistent) worldview to me seems terribly dangerous and misguided. I can't imagine 8-year-old kids in Sunday school have yet developed the ability to think too deeply about what they're being taught, to analyze and examine doctrines for themselves. Instead, they're put in a position where they have assent to complicated ideas they shouldn't have to shoulder responsibility for at their age, else risk disapproval from some authority figure. This seems like intellectual bullying to me; the kids are put in a totally unfair position.

As a former Christian, now I can't imagine being a parent and instilling in my hypothetical future child a view that says from the moment they were born, they deserved to experience the worst possible suffering forever.

Ok, science is Lord. But the theory of monkeys is just another ancient philosophy which was poured into the brains of many people thousands of years ago. Darwin brought a mechanism to the ancient philosophy? Lol, he even had no idea about the cell’s structure. Even today, evolutionists are puzzled about how the first ling cell emerged, mutation is not a proven mechanism for species evolution, missing evolutionary fossil records, yet they accept nothing but Darwin’s imagination. Isn’t this brainwashing?

Steve James, you are so undereducated it hurts my eyes to read that nonsense you have spouted. Everything you said are terrible misunderstandings. I don't even understand how you came up with them in the first place. I'm very puzzled and worried.

Considering your reference and dismissal of the 'religious worldview that is...2000 years old' (this obviously includes Christianity)...

Have you read the Bible in completion? Have you researched the words of the text in the authentic Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to find out the depth and meaning of all things spoken of within the Bible?

Most pursuers of the truth (including myself) have not read everything in-depth in the Bible. Yet, what I have started to learn over the last 19 years is not at all worthy of dismissal.

The Bible is not merely a spoon-feeder. It is more than a wealth of knowledge.

No, I am not in a pursuit to attack your comments. I simply do not understand why you deny there is so much to discover about the world, in light of biblical content.

Countless scholars (Christians and non-Christians, as well as individuals of casual study) continue to research the words of the Bible and the meaning of the text within context. It is not surface reading at all.

It is wise not to dismiss a faith that you simply do not believe exists, do not understand and/or do not like. It is better to search the Scriptures for yourself and find out whether what is said, in context, is of concrete substance or not.

As you do so, over the years you can then begin to discover some of the rich wisdom, knowledge and understanding found within the biblical text.

You would then be able to consider whether educating children regarding Christianity truly 'ignores what humanity has learned about the universe, about history, about human psychology, about medicine' and so forth.

In fact, you would begin to discover that the biblical text contains the truth about the physical, mental, spiritual, medical, emotional world and more. There is still so much to discover about the universe and beyond, from the Bible.

Christianity existed long before 2000 years ago. As far as is known, the term 'Christian' was first recorded in the Bible after the claimed death and resurrection of Christ. Christians serve the Eternal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who is also known as 'Elohim'). So yes, the man Christ-Jesus walked the earth around 2000 years ago (He claimed to be God in the flesh). Nevertheless, the faith which today individuals in the West typically refer to as 'Christianity' has always existed.

There is so much to learn about this world, things which we do not know or understand in entirety. And, who can possibly claim to know all there is about Christianity, to the point of judging and dismissing the benefits of teaching children about it?

Rather than labelling the benefits as 'harm', why not search to find out whether what has been revealed 'in history, psychology' and so forth, concerning the Christian God is real?

Wisdom is more than words and equations. It encompasses demonstrating the humility to learn things you do not know and the willingness to sincerely accept any credible evidence offered - evidence that can be tried and tested.

In my own life, I have come to find that the more I pursue the Christian God, particularly by searching the biblical text, the more I discover credible evidence that proves He is real. I have also discovered that He is more than capable of proving Himself to be real.

It is therefore most unwise to claim that parents who teach Christianity harm their children.

Unfortunately due to so called "doctrined" Religion; a gap for Atheism were and Unbelievers were created. I grew up with Old Time Religion of "Women dont wear Pants" and Do not live t"gether befor marraige but had NO support from family or hard-core religious preachers. Went through Depression, Alcoholism, Divorce and a miscarriage BUT "Words" that kept me standing even in darkest hrs fighting against Jesus (for choices I made), my grandfather (Old Religion Preacher) God do not expect us to be perfect otherwise we wouldnt be human; most Important have Love and above all Do not Judge! Show people through your life no matter what u go through that Jesus died on the Cross beaten and broken, forgave a murderer and were judged even by his own disciples as 'human form' on earth; that HIS LOVE FOR HIS CREATIONs ARE UNCONDITIONAl! That's what I teach my kids today! TO LOVE IS TO BE LOVED! Me and My Papa Jesus have a great relationship; I may faulter but with His Grace not FALL! Blessings xx

And how could I forget 1 of the most precious blessings He Blessed us with HIS FORGIVENESS- His Blood flew on the Cross so that we dont have to be "doctrined' anymore; that we could be human and be forgiven if we sin! So we could start anew and strive to live according to HIS will! This does not mean a murderer or rapist can ask forgiveness then just act again; NO! Does this mean christians' cant sin, NO; Impossible - then You would be Lord Jesus and He would be You! Forgive those who act against u; so that u may be forgiven for your sins and Love again! Oh, if u felt His True Love, You would never Let Go! Heaven is a Place on Earth! Keep well!

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.